Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
36 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Warden v Hayden |
Defendant robs cab driver and runs away. Driver follows defendant and sees him run into room. Police enter building and find evidence in his home and arrest him. Case brings up topic of "hot pursuit". |
|
|
"Hot Pursuit" |
1) When officer is in pursuit of suspect 2) for whom officer has probable cause to believe has committed a "dangerous felony" 3) The officer may enter the home without a warrant to search for: a) Defendants person AND b) any weapons 4) while defendant is still "at large" |
|
|
Brigham city, Utah v. Stuart |
Police respond to a loud party call, police go up to home. Police see fight inside home and enter. Court ruled: 1) police may enter a home without a warrant 2) when they have an "objectively reasonable" basis for believing an occupant is a) seriously injured Or b) immediately threatened with such injury |
|
|
Kentucky v. King |
Undercover police buys drugs from defendant. UC Police informs uniformed police. They didn't didn't stop him in time and defendant enters building. Police knock announcing themselves, heard noise and thought defendant was destroying evidence and made forced entry. Court rules: 1) police may make a "warrantless entry" when exigency exists 2) even when police themselves create exigent circumstances 3) so long as police did not create exigency by violating 4A |
|
|
Missouri v. McNeely |
Police stop speeding car. Defendant seems under the influence, took FST. Refused breath test and blood test. Police still took blood and revealed his blood %. Court ruled: 1) "There is no per se exception" to warrant requirement in forced blood settings 2) must prove exigency under T.O.C in each case |
|
|
Voluntariness of Consent |
1) in order to be legally effective, consent must be "voluntarily" under totality of circumstances Both 1) "Internal" = defendants own characteristics & 2) external = environment & police behavior B) Defendant need not know of his/her "right to refuse" consent for Vol., although this is a factor for Vol. C) any coercion, expressed or implied, can destroy voluntariness of consent. |
|
|
US v. Matlock |
Police go to def. House def. Rents a room in this home. Def shares a room with another resident. Police ask roommate to search room, she allows them. Police search room and find money from recent robbery. Matlock was not present. Case of Third party consent |
|
|
Third party consent |
1) third party can provide consent if he/she possesses "common authority" over area due to mutual use & joint control 2) because, def in sharing area with third party, assumed the risk third party would allow others, including police, entry. |
|
|
Georgia v. Randolph |
Def arrested for drug possession after police find drugs in his home. Police had no warrant. But def's wife consented. Randolph was present and objected to the search. 1) police cannot rely on third party consent if def occupant is present & objecting 2) but if police have PC objecting occupant has committed a crime, they can arrest def. Remove him from area & return to obtain consent from present third party |
|
|
Illinois v. Rodriguez |
Woman calls police to home. Women had signs showing she was beaten. She leads police to Def's home. Which she has a key for and refers as "our home". She gave police consent to search. Police found drugs. women had moved out weeks before the search, she had no authority to consent. Case of Objective good faith mistake in third party's authority to consent |
|
|
Objective Good faith mistake in Third party's authority to consent |
1) even if third party does not have common authority to consent to search 2) Police can search if relied in objective good faith on third party's apparent authority. |
|
|
Florida v Jimeno |
Police overheard def. arranging a drug transaction over phone. Police followed him then pulled him over for traffic violation. Police told def. suspicion of drugs. Def. consented to search, police found drugs in paper bag. - supreme court says this is not violation of 4A -Case of Scope of Consent |
|
|
Scope of Consent |
1) Police may search wherever an objectively reasonable person would have understood the consent to include *This Can include containers 2) As defined by the Expressed object of search *Drugs are expressed object in case of Florida v. Jimeno. Police may search for wherever drugs can fit. |
|
|
Carroll v. US |
Defendants are brothers, and bootleggers during prohibition. Agents see them driving on the highway. They stopped and searched their car, it was an intrusive search. The agents ripped out the upholstery of vehicle and find bottles of alcohol. Defendants say it is an unreasonable search since they have no S/W. Court says cars are different from homes because cares are for transporting and mobile. -Case of Automobile exception |
|
|
Automobile Exception |
1) police may search a vehicle without a warrant if: a) police have PC that vehicle contains contraband or evidence of criminality b) Because vehicles 1) are mobile & 2) have a required expectation of privacy r contraband |
|
|
Chambers v Maroney |
Guys driving a blue station wagon. They had robbed a gas station. Police look for similar car in surrounding area with similar subjects and find them. Police have PC to search but don't. -Police have keys and control over car, removing its mobility. Court rules: 1) if A.E Power to search attaches to vehicle at scene of stop, the power to search continues at the station 2) for up to 3 days |
|
|
CA v. Carny (CA v. Motorhomey) |
-Police see young men go into motor home, stay a bit and then leave. Police stop one of the males and learn def. was exchanging marijuana for sex. police search w/o S/W. Defendant argues they need S/W since it is a home. Court says: 1) motor home falls within auto exception 2) Because a) readily mobile & b) Lessened R.E.P |
|
|
US v. Ross |
Police have tip that def. was selling drugs from car. Police poulled him over, opened trunk and found drugs. Took car to station and found more evidence (cash) Court ruled: 1) police may search wherever a Magistrate would have found PC to search 2) Including Containers 3) containers can be searched even if not owned by driver |
|
|
Wyoming v. Houghton |
police stop car for speeding, police sees syringe in drivers shirt pocket. Police search car for drugs, and found purse with drugs. Def. argues purse is not drivers so they don't have PC to search it. 1) police may search wherever a Magistrate would have found PC to search2) Including Containers3) containers can be searched even if not owned by driver |
|
|
4A structure |
A) Application b) violation c) remedy 1) exclusionary rule (E/R) 2) alternatives to the (E/R) a) civil suit b) departmental discipline c) Apology d) doing nothing |
|
|
Exclusionary Rule (Pros) |
1) enforces constitution by deterring police illegality 2) Promotes "judicial integrity" 3) promotes public trust in CJS by promoting rule of law |
|
|
Exclusionary rule (Cons) |
1) Harms truth by blocking evidence from courtroom 2) harms "judicial economy" 3) harms public trust in CJS with "technicalities" |
|
|
Adams v. New York |
-Rejected the exclusionary rule |
|
|
Mapp v. Ohio |
-Accepted E/R -Police go to def's house, police "had" a warrant to search for bomb instrumentalities. Police search home, find obscene materials and charge her for them. Police never had a warrant -Court accepted E/, used it as a remedy for 4A violation by state of officials. |
|
|
Rationales for E/R
|
1) police deterrence 2) Judicial integrity |
|
|
Nature of E/R
|
1) "Right" of 4A = Original Characterization 2) "Judicial remedy" = today's characterization |
|
|
Wong Sun v United States |
-Police go to Toy's laundry, the back of it is his home. Police there is evidence of drugs there. Police force entry into home after Toy refused to let them in .He made statements of his involvement with the drugs and involvement of the defendant, they arrest defendant. They were all released, days later Sun returned on his own to station and made confessing statement Court states: -There was no PC to justify arrest -All evidence found during search inadmissible because they were "fruits" of unlawful search. The statement of Sun was admissible in court however. |
|
|
Franks vs. Delaware |
-Def. arrested for raping cynthia. When arrested he questioned the officers arrest and thought he'd be arrested for raping another girl. Def had dressed distinctively when committing the crimes. officers write in warrant they had spoke to youth center and asked them was the def wears. Defense lawyer contacts the youth center and they had denied that any officer ever contacted them. Officers made that up and put into warrant. *Case for Frank's test for motion to traverse |
|
|
Frank's test for motion to traverse. |
A) to even GET a hearing: 1) Def must first makea"substantial Preliminary showing" that "specific portions"of a S/W affidavit contain either: I. Deliberate Falsehoods OR II. statements in reckless disregard of truth AND Such statements are "material" to probable cause. *If officers are negligent or careless of the truth,it does not give you a hearing, must prove they were recklessly disregardingthe truth B) At Hearing: 1)Defendant must show, by a preponderance of evidence [>50%] A)Delib. Falsehoods…. OR B)Statements in reckless disregard AND 2) Such statements = "material" |
|
|
US v. Leon |
-Leon target of police surveillance based on anonymous tip. Police received search warrant based on evidence from surveillance.Police find drugs. Affidavit for warrant was insufficient, it did not establish PC. -court ruled since evidence seized on a mistaken issued warrant can still be admissible in trial. |
|
|
Good Faith exception |
1) Officer's acting in objectively reasonable good faith reliance & 2) On a Search warrant [or Its computer representation -> Arizona v. Evans] 3) Issued by a "Detached and Neutral Magistrate" a) Separate and independent of law enforcement & b) Capable of determining probable cause *Shadwick v. Tampa & 4) Executed (carried out) within the scope (boundaries) of warrant's terms |
|
|
Knock and Announce |
a) Common law rule that officers must knock & announce presence Before entering to execute S/W is not part of the 4A "reas" (Wilson v Ark) b) There is NO "Per Se" exception to K&A rule c) Police may prove by R.S that K&A should be avoided due to: i. Threat of physical violence ii. OR Destruction of evidence iii. OR prisoner escape d) Violation of K&A rule does not require exclusion (Hudson v. Mich.) |
|
|
Wilson v. Ark |
Def selling drugs to police informant. State police was monitoring. informant gives the information to police. Def holds gun to informant in future meeting and threatens to kill him if def finds out he is an informant. -In this case police had knocked and announced WHILE entering. -Court ruled that officers must Knock & announce their presence Before entering to execute S/W. Which is not part of 4A "Reas" |
|
|
Richards v. Wisc. |
-Defendant suspected of drug possession. Police obtain warrant BUT did not receive magistrates approval for a "NO knock" entry. They needed to knock and announce. Police then announced themselves as a employee for the hotel. Defendant opens door and then police arrest and find evidence. -Court rules that there is no "per Se" exception to K&A rule - The police may prove by R.S(under Totality of Circ.) that K&A should be avoided due to i. Threat of physical violence ii. OR Destruction of evidence iii. OR prisoner escape |
|
|
Hudson v. Mich |
-Police Knock and announce, but only wait 3-5 seconds after knocking. Search revealed drugs and firearms. -A violation of the K&A rule does Not require exclusion because evidence would have inevitably been found |
|
|
Wilson v. Layne
|
-Policego to home to arrest individual in his home, but son was not home. Media goesalong with police and photos are taken during warrant execution. The petitionersued for having the media present. Court does rule having media is a violationof 4A since there is no reason to have them present. |
